BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us‪.‬ JewishPodcasts.org

Rav Miller: “This so geshmak, we could sit here in the air conditioned room studying for the next two hundred years!”



Today’s learning is sponsored



 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 



Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=



 Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos. 



 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

 Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

 And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 



 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 



 Summary 



 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth, or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

 There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)” 

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.

Today’s learning is sponsored



Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=



 Summary 



 Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: The flute overrides Shabbos. Chachomim: It does not override even a yom tov. 



 Rav Yosef: The dispute is with regard to the shir that accompanied the daily korban [at the time that they would pour wine all year and water on Sukkos].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, and so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.

 The Chachomim hold that the primary component of Shira is singing with the mouth, and consequently the instruments are mere accessories which do not override Shabbos.

With regard to the flute of Beis Hashoeiva, everyone agrees that it is not an avodah and does not override Shabbos. [Later the gemara refutes this, but this is the shittah of Rav Yosef]. 



 Rav Yosef: I have proof to this from the following beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit.



It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute [they had an ancient relic in the Beis Hamikdash, a flute used by Moshe which was made of wood]. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira. 

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah. 



 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. It was ‘impossible’ to make this flute of other materials [once a king coated this flute with gold and it no longer had the same sound, so they were forced to remove the coating].

 Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda says that the same law applies where it is ‘possible’ to use different materials, wood is still fit for the Mikdash vessels. Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi holds that what was done in a case where it is ‘impossible’ is not a proof for and in other situations wooden vessels are unfit.

Today’s learning is sponsored



 



Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=



 Summary 



 Mishna: 



The Chalil [a fife; a musical instrument] is played for five or six days of Yom Tov (up til here is the original mishna which was very brief. Here the mishna adds an explanation). This is the Chalil of Beis Hashoeiva, which overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom Tov*.



 Gemara: 



 We Learned: Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina disagreed: One of them teaches that the celebration was called the Celebration of Shoeiva [Drawing]** and one of them teaches that it was called the Chashuva [Significant] Celebration [since it was taught orally, this difference came up]. 



 Mar Zutra: The one who taught Shoeiva is not in error, and the one who taught Chashuva is not in error (although only one is correct, there is justification for each version). 

Justification for Shoeiva: The possuk “[Ush’avtem] And you shall draw water with joy from the wells of salvation”.

Justification for Chashuva: As Rav Nachman said: It is a significant mitzvah [chashuva] which originates from the six days of Creation (39.3).



__________



* Tosfos: Playing an instrument is only D’rabbanan which is generally overridden in the Mikdash. But here it is not a necessary part of the Avodah, only a display of excessive simcha. 



* *Tosfos: The Yerushalmi adds that they also drew Ruach Hakodesh from the simcha there.

Rav Miller: “This so geshmak, we could sit here in the air conditioned room studying for the next two hundred years!”

 

Today’s learning is sponsored

 In honor of Rabbi Yoshi Wolhendler Shlita 



Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=



Rav Yosef: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda holds that the primary component of Shira is the musical instruments, so they’re considered Avodah which overrides Shabbos.



 Beraisa: Vessels of avodah that are made of wood; Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi deems them unfit and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda deems them fit. 

Rav Yosef: It seems that Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda who deems the wooden vessel fit learns from Moshe’s flute. This is because he holds that musical instruments are vessels of avodah since they are necessary for shira.

And Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi who deems the wooden vessel unfit holds that the primary shira is singing with the mouth, and the wooden flute was not an instrument of avodah.



 Response: That is not a proof. We could say that everyone agrees that shira is singing accompanied by musical instruments. Here, the question is whether we can learn “the possible from the impossible”. 



 Summary 



 Response 2: We can say that everyone agrees that the primary component of shira is singing with the mouth , or that we do not “learn the possible from the impossible”. But we learn a law from the golden Menorah. Here, the question is which method we use to learn this law.

There is a system of Klal uPrat uKlal. When there’s a general statement followed by a specific detail, then this detail defines the entire general statement; that’s Klal uPrat. When this detail is followed by another general statement, it includes more but is still limited to what is similar to the detail. For instance: “Make a utensil (Klal) out of gold (Prat); a carved work (Klal)”, this teaches that it must be made out of metal, similar to gold.

The other system is Ribui, Miut v’Ribui. According to this system, a Miut does not define the general statement, rather it accomplishes what a Klal uPrat uKlal accomplishes. An additional Ribui includes everything originally included by the general statement. The Miut only comes to exclude one thing. In the case of the Menorah: “Make a utensil (Ribui - out of any material) out of gold (Miut - any metal, similar to gold); a carved work (Ribui - make it out of anything but the cheapest material; clay)”

 Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi follows the system of Klal uPrat uKlal, so he deems wood unfit for the sacred vessels, and Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda follows the system of Ribui Miut v’Ribui, according to which only clay vessels are unfit.